You are here

Louisville's Middling Ethics Reforms

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

Robert Wechsler

Philadelphia,
Baltimore,
and
now Louisville have come up with ethics reforms in the past week or so. Baltimore's
reforms were disappointing, while Philadelphia's were a big surprise to
everyone, and came with a few serious question marks. Louisville's reforms are hardly a surprise, and they stand somewhere between disappointing and true reform.

In Louisville, the council spent two years working on, or fighting
about, the city's ethics reforms. The city started out with a decent
although minimal ethics
code, with an ethics commission appointed by the mayor, with
council approval. Few of the code's limitations are addressed
by the new reforms. However, most of the changes are positive,
providing easier access to some ethics documents, broadening ethics
jurisdiction to those who should never have been left out in the first
place, broadening the definition of "family," limiting who can be ethics commission
members, prohibiting political activity with government resources and
employees, and clarifying use of government e-mail and websites.

On the negative side, there are increased penalties for frivolous
complaints (I don't know the numbers, but the council was talking about
substantially larger penalties than the ethics commission can place on
officials), and a one-year statute of limitations (at least from the
date of discovery, it appears). Nothing is done to make the ethics
commission more independent or to ensure a sufficient budget, there's
nothing about
such uncovered areas as the revolving door, and no cleaning up of
language such
as defining conflicts of interest in terms of impairing objectivity,
prejudicing
judgment, and the like, that is, language that provides limited
guidance and creates obstacles to enforcement, especially because the
language keeps changing from one provision to the next.

Since I can't find the actual bill, here is a summary of the reforms
from a council
press
release released on Friday:

Increases transparency by requiring ethics documents and disclosure
forms to be placed on the Metro website.

Significantly broadens the number of government employees who are
covered, including persons who have the ability to approve contracts
over $10,000 and legislative assistants to members of the Metro Council.

Establishes a time-frame for action to be taken by the Ethics
Commission. Requires the commission meet on a monthly basis to report
to the council regarding any advisory opinions or decisions that have
been pending for more than 180 days.

Expands and clarifies the definition of “Family” to include in-laws,
grandparents and grandchildren that weren’t previously covered. It also
includes anyone who is a member of the metro officer’s household,
whether they are a dependent for tax purposes or not.

Requires the Ethics Commission submit an annual report to the Metro
Council, summarizing its activities, decisions, advisory opinions and
any suggestions on how to modify or improve the ethics code. The
ordinance also requires the Ethics Commission conduct a thorough review
of the ethics code every four years, hold a public hearing, and then
make recommendations to the council.

Clarifies and expands what political activities are considered a
violation.

Defines who may be appointed to the Ethics Commission, does not
allow for anyone who within the past year has been a lobbyist, member
of a metro officer’s family or a government employee, or an elected
official.

Adds additional requirements for the filing of complaints, and
increases penalties for frivolous complaints.

Adds a section clarifying transactions with subordinates,
prohibiting a metro officer from compelling a subordinate to
participate in a campaign or make a political contribution.

Prohibits Metro Officers from engaging in political activity with
government resources or government employees. It also clarifies what is
considered appropriate use of government e-mail and websites.